[larkinforever]

I think, based only on extrapolating how Shaw seems to operate, he would only tell Burns that he had no scholarship for year 5 if he really, really, needed that scholarship for 2017. As of now, I don't think that is the case. But two other things could have happened. Burns could feel that things weren't fair to him this year, that he got all the "hard" games while Chryst got all the "easy" games. He could also be aware that (rightly, IMHO) he has a long climb to get the full confidence of the coaches, teammates, and (emphatically here on the Cardboard) fans. So even if he thought he could beat out Costello, he may have decided it was too unlikely to count on. The other thing that the could have happened is the coaches just told him " you can stay, but you have no shot", in which case he decided to go.
It is also possible he had decided to go before Chryst got hurt, and now may decide not to. Or anything else. "Reliable sources" aren't.

Not disagreeing with anything above, but irrespective of depth charts or projected role or things of that nature, I've often thought earning one's degree and taking advantage of the graduate transfer rule is a wonderful way to get the best of many worlds - you earn your degree while getting a 4-year college experience, and also get to continue playing the game you (presumably?) love, and also get to expand horizons at a new institution (perhaps with significantly different geographic/social/etc. influences), and also get to earn a master's degree and...

[larkinforever]

I think, based only on extrapolating how Shaw seems to operate, he would only tell Burns that he had no scholarship for year 5 if he really, really, needed that scholarship for 2017. As of now, I don't think that is the case. But two other things could have happened. Burns could feel that things weren't fair to him this year, that he got all the "hard" games while Chryst got all the "easy" games. He could also be aware that (rightly, IMHO) he has a long climb to get the full confidence of the coaches, teammates, and (emphatically here on the Cardboard) fans. So even if he thought he could beat out Costello, he may have decided it was too unlikely to count on. The other thing that the could have happened is the coaches just told him " you can stay, but you have no shot", in which case he decided to go.
It is also possible he had decided to go before Chryst got hurt, and now may decide not to. Or anything else. "Reliable sources" aren't.

Not disagreeing with anything above, but irrespective of depth charts or projected role or things of that nature, I've often thought earning one's degree and taking advantage of the graduate transfer rule is a wonderful way to get the best of many worlds - you earn your degree while getting a 4-year college experience, and also get to continue playing the game you (presumably?) love, and also get to expand horizons at a new institution (perhaps with significantly different geographic/social/etc. influences), and also get to earn a master's degree and...

[StanfordIndians1]

I think it is so funny that some people STILL think a Freshman QB could come in and handle the calls of our offense.  Guys-its not ever going to happen.  Bloomgren isn't going to dummy down the playbook.  And if you think a frosh QB could handle it then you are mistaken.  And if we did play a frosh with a limited set of plays...we won't win

Burns may not have a home yet.  Just means he will explore see if he finds a fit and/or maybe not play ala Crower.

It is interesting timing that we will only have one QB in Costello until Chryst is an option.  What if Costello is the starter game 1 and 2...gets entrenched....does Chryst consider transferring to uncles Wisconsin program?  This plot will thicken in the next 9 months...should be interesting Cardboard material

[StanfordIndians1]

I think it is so funny that some people STILL think a Freshman QB could come in and handle the calls of our offense.  Guys-its not ever going to happen.  Bloomgren isn't going to dummy down the playbook.  And if you think a frosh QB could handle it then you are mistaken.  And if we did play a frosh with a limited set of plays...we won't win

Burns may not have a home yet.  Just means he will explore see if he finds a fit and/or maybe not play ala Crower.

It is interesting timing that we will only have one QB in Costello until Chryst is an option.  What if Costello is the starter game 1 and 2...gets entrenched....does Chryst consider transferring to uncles Wisconsin program?  This plot will thicken in the next 9 months...should be interesting Cardboard material

[Goose]

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

And, what if Costello is hurt?  Do you play a lesser talented walk-on so you don't have to play the True Frosh who has elite talent and potential? 

The hope is that the walk-on actually is an adequate stand-in, but if he isn't, do you flush your season down the toilet just to preserve your - overly - complicated offense?

The goal is to win the game. Success in football comes from a combination of physical ability, execution, and scheme. The coaches have to decide how to combine these elements to win the game. If you have 10 players who can execute the whole scheme effectively, and one player with great ability who either doesn't know/can't execute the whole scheme, you can be (much) worse off than with 10 players who can execute the whole scheme and one player who can execute the whole scheme sort of OK. I think Shaw will put the most physically talented ("best" in your terms) out there not ASAP, but "as soon as it is advantageous". That is a balance among scheme, execution, and physical ability. I think Shaw does, and will continue, to simplify the scheme if it is net positive. The difference between his opinion and your opinion as to what the trade-offs are may differ. The whole thing is a big multi-variable non-linear optimization problem with many local maximums and limited experimental data obtainable. That's why Shaw gets paid the big bucks.
In your question about Costello not being able to play, what decision do you think is the right one? What if the walk-on is pretty good but not good enough to beat UW? Do you burn Mills' shirt even if you don't know for sure he can beat UW? Maybe (God forbid) the 2017 team isn't very good. How good does it have to be to make playing Mills worthwhile? And what if you do play Mills, and he gets hurt because he has no protection and doesn't know how to recognize the safety blitz? Or what if he gets so gun-shy after getting beat up for a year he is never any good (yes, this happens)? I don't pretend to know, certainly not right now, and probably not in August with any high confidence. I suspect that even during the season, there will be many "suggestions" as to what should be done.

[Goose]

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

And, what if Costello is hurt?  Do you play a lesser talented walk-on so you don't have to play the True Frosh who has elite talent and potential? 

The hope is that the walk-on actually is an adequate stand-in, but if he isn't, do you flush your season down the toilet just to preserve your - overly - complicated offense?

The goal is to win the game. Success in football comes from a combination of physical ability, execution, and scheme. The coaches have to decide how to combine these elements to win the game. If you have 10 players who can execute the whole scheme effectively, and one player with great ability who either doesn't know/can't execute the whole scheme, you can be (much) worse off than with 10 players who can execute the whole scheme and one player who can execute the whole scheme sort of OK. I think Shaw will put the most physically talented ("best" in your terms) out there not ASAP, but "as soon as it is advantageous". That is a balance among scheme, execution, and physical ability. I think Shaw does, and will continue, to simplify the scheme if it is net positive. The difference between his opinion and your opinion as to what the trade-offs are may differ. The whole thing is a big multi-variable non-linear optimization problem with many local maximums and limited experimental data obtainable. That's why Shaw gets paid the big bucks.
In your question about Costello not being able to play, what decision do you think is the right one? What if the walk-on is pretty good but not good enough to beat UW? Do you burn Mills' shirt even if you don't know for sure he can beat UW? Maybe (God forbid) the 2017 team isn't very good. How good does it have to be to make playing Mills worthwhile? And what if you do play Mills, and he gets hurt because he has no protection and doesn't know how to recognize the safety blitz? Or what if he gets so gun-shy after getting beat up for a year he is never any good (yes, this happens)? I don't pretend to know, certainly not right now, and probably not in August with any high confidence. I suspect that even during the season, there will be many "suggestions" as to what should be done.

[TreesAndBirds]

Well if Burns wants to go to a good academic school that plays in a P5 conference where he'd have a shot at quarterback (or maybe even coach  ;), there is a school just north of Oakland.....

[TreesAndBirds]

Well if Burns wants to go to a good academic school that plays in a P5 conference where he'd have a shot at quarterback (or maybe even coach  ;), there is a school just north of Oakland.....

[Goose]

Well if Burns wants to go to a good academic school that plays in a P5 conference where he'd have a shot at quarterback (or maybe even coach  ;), there is a school just north of Oakland.....

He would never get a shot at cal. Too good of a runner ;D

[Goose]

Well if Burns wants to go to a good academic school that plays in a P5 conference where he'd have a shot at quarterback (or maybe even coach  ;), there is a school just north of Oakland.....

He would never get a shot at cal. Too good of a runner ;D

[Hank 91]

I watched the same games all of you did, but I'm still surprised that Burns is transferring. (I never expected Burns to take a meaningful snap at Stanford, but still.) The fact that he is tells me that either he knows in his heart that Costello will beat him out, or the coaches have told him this directly. As some have mentioned here recently, he did have some moments in the sun -- the perfect start against Kansas State, the comeback against UCLA -- and there were times when I really believed he was going to be good enough to lead this team to a conference championship. It's surprising to me that he doesn't believe it anymore.

[Hank 91]

I watched the same games all of you did, but I'm still surprised that Burns is transferring. (I never expected Burns to take a meaningful snap at Stanford, but still.) The fact that he is tells me that either he knows in his heart that Costello will beat him out, or the coaches have told him this directly. As some have mentioned here recently, he did have some moments in the sun -- the perfect start against Kansas State, the comeback against UCLA -- and there were times when I really believed he was going to be good enough to lead this team to a conference championship. It's surprising to me that he doesn't believe it anymore.

[fullmetal]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

[fullmetal]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

[Hank 91]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

I agree completely. To me the most telling events in the Sun Bowl were the two grounding penalties and the illegal forward pass. I've watched a lot of football, and I've never seen a quarterback throw a pass from four yards beyond the line of scrimmage. If he were a basketball player we'd say he had no court awareness. Or here's another analogy -- a fish out of water. Except for isolated moments, he never looked remotely comfortable. Some of that rust can be probably be attributed to his two months on the bench, but there appeared to be something more going on.

[Hank 91]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

I agree completely. To me the most telling events in the Sun Bowl were the two grounding penalties and the illegal forward pass. I've watched a lot of football, and I've never seen a quarterback throw a pass from four yards beyond the line of scrimmage. If he were a basketball player we'd say he had no court awareness. Or here's another analogy -- a fish out of water. Except for isolated moments, he never looked remotely comfortable. Some of that rust can be probably be attributed to his two months on the bench, but there appeared to be something more going on.

[Goose]

Not disagreeing with anything above, but irrespective of depth charts or projected role or things of that nature, I've often thought earning one's degree and taking advantage of the graduate transfer rule is a wonderful way to get the best of many worlds - you earn your degree while getting a 4-year college experience, and also get to continue playing the game you (presumably?) love, and also get to expand horizons at a new institution (perhaps with significantly different geographic/social/etc. influences), and also get to earn a master's degree and...

I agree. It could be a very good way to broaden your horizons both in football and in education. And, if you are not a guaranteed starter, there is relatively no downside. I think it is going to get more popular real fast with guys that didn't play as freshmen. If you graduate, it may become the norm. Free agency hits the NCAA.

[Goose]

Not disagreeing with anything above, but irrespective of depth charts or projected role or things of that nature, I've often thought earning one's degree and taking advantage of the graduate transfer rule is a wonderful way to get the best of many worlds - you earn your degree while getting a 4-year college experience, and also get to continue playing the game you (presumably?) love, and also get to expand horizons at a new institution (perhaps with significantly different geographic/social/etc. influences), and also get to earn a master's degree and...

I agree. It could be a very good way to broaden your horizons both in football and in education. And, if you are not a guaranteed starter, there is relatively no downside. I think it is going to get more popular real fast with guys that didn't play as freshmen. If you graduate, it may become the norm. Free agency hits the NCAA.

[Goose]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

I think that is a great insight. I think he hit bottom against Colorado, but I think that it was very hard on him that at UW and against WSU, when no matter what he did, it didn't work (Including hand-offs to running backs). When you prepare for years by learning a system from which you expect success, and it doesn't work the way it was drawn up, essentially at all, it can be demoralizing in the extreme. Against Colorado, I think he panicked, and started dropping the ball/throwing to the wrong team much more frequently. Mistakes of desperation.

[Goose]

I was hoping the Burns of KSU/U$C/UCLA would re-emerge, but it hasn't happened.  He did enough for Stanford to beat UNC.  I don't think he's been the same since UW, unfortunately.  And apparently he hasn't yet found the coaching or therapy to recover from that.

I think that is a great insight. I think he hit bottom against Colorado, but I think that it was very hard on him that at UW and against WSU, when no matter what he did, it didn't work (Including hand-offs to running backs). When you prepare for years by learning a system from which you expect success, and it doesn't work the way it was drawn up, essentially at all, it can be demoralizing in the extreme. Against Colorado, I think he panicked, and started dropping the ball/throwing to the wrong team much more frequently. Mistakes of desperation.

[BobK]

First of all Burns might well be thinking Masters first pay for It by playing football 2nd.    Good for him.

Re read what full metal said.  It's the calls at the line of scrimmage that takes time. 

We seem to have two decent walk ons.  Of course we rail birds are like the dinosaur

[BobK]

First of all Burns might well be thinking Masters first pay for It by playing football 2nd.    Good for him.

Re read what full metal said.  It's the calls at the line of scrimmage that takes time. 

We seem to have two decent walk ons.  Of course we rail birds are like the dinosaur

[OutsiderFan]

The most Occam's Razor explanation for Burns transferring is that Costello will beat him out and Chryst will at worst be the backup in 2017.

This is a good thing for Stanford football, and maybe even Ryan Burns.  He can probably grad transfer to an Ivy, yes?

[OutsiderFan]

The most Occam's Razor explanation for Burns transferring is that Costello will beat him out and Chryst will at worst be the backup in 2017.

This is a good thing for Stanford football, and maybe even Ryan Burns.  He can probably grad transfer to an Ivy, yes?

[fullmetal]

I think there are many programs who would give him a schollie for a brain dump on how the Stanford Football program operates.  It's less kosher if Burns transfers within the conference and gives his new school all the signals, code words, etc...

[fullmetal]

I think there are many programs who would give him a schollie for a brain dump on how the Stanford Football program operates.  It's less kosher if Burns transfers within the conference and gives his new school all the signals, code words, etc...

[BostonCard]

Wilner really could have used a capable editor on that story.

He writes:

Stanford quarterback Keller Chryst will have knee surgery and miss at least six months as the result of an injury suffered in the Sun Bowl, according to multiple sources.

and then

Senior Ryan Burns, who replaced Chryst in the Sun Bowl (and started the first seven games of the season) is expected to leave Stanford...

"is expected to leave Stanford" is just about the most weaselly formulation you can come up with, especially in light of the previous quote that was attributed to "multiple sources".  Was the info that he is expected to leave Stanford based on the same (or other) "multiple sources"?  If so, he should say as much.  Is it complete speculation on his part, given a patina of legitimacy with the formulation "...is expected to..."

I don't mind uninformed speculation on the part of reporters, but it ought to be labeled as such by the reporter.  On the other hand, if it comes from a source or sources who may know, then that should be communicated.

Also, he later writes, "Everything about the incident — from his immediate reaction and the in-game treatment by the medical staff to the prognosis and the delay in having surgery (to let swelling subside) – suggests a torn anterior cruciate ligament." (this I believe is correct) EXCEPT, in the very next paragraph, he writes "Sources said Chryst, a junior, will miss at least six months from the time of surgery, which would peg his return to late July or the first half of August, at the earliest." which, would be very optimistic for an ACL injury (7 - 9 months is more typical).  It's not inconceivable, but Adrian Peterson's return from an ACL injury suffered on December 24th 2011 by the first week of the NFL season (Sept. 9) was considered to be a quick outlier (though, being fair, Peterson suffered a torn ACL and MCL).

I am struggling to put all the info together, and to be honest, I am a bit surprised that Burns would leave, given that he is more than likely the only health experienced quarterback on the roster.  Obviously, I can think of reasons why he would not:

• Chryst's injury is not as bad as feared, and the six months is a fairly firm date (unlikely, since he hasn't had the surgery).
  
• A realistic assessment (either his own) or by the coaches has let it known that Costello is the likely starter in Sydney.  Maybe Costello has produced a Luck-like redshirt season,w here everyone expects he will be the next big thing at QB for Stanford, though I think if that were the case we would have all heard about it.
  
• Burns is down on the staff or Stanford, based on having lost the starting position, or because of his own assessment of his regression over the season (possible), or because of a conflict.
  
• Other reasons (wanting to be closer to home, for example)
  

Still, better writing by Wilner would have offered a little bit more information to inform the speculation.

If he is indeed grad transferring, best of luck to him.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wilner really could have used a capable editor on that story.

He writes:

Stanford quarterback Keller Chryst will have knee surgery and miss at least six months as the result of an injury suffered in the Sun Bowl, according to multiple sources.

and then

Senior Ryan Burns, who replaced Chryst in the Sun Bowl (and started the first seven games of the season) is expected to leave Stanford...

"is expected to leave Stanford" is just about the most weaselly formulation you can come up with, especially in light of the previous quote that was attributed to "multiple sources".  Was the info that he is expected to leave Stanford based on the same (or other) "multiple sources"?  If so, he should say as much.  Is it complete speculation on his part, given a patina of legitimacy with the formulation "...is expected to..."

I don't mind uninformed speculation on the part of reporters, but it ought to be labeled as such by the reporter.  On the other hand, if it comes from a source or sources who may know, then that should be communicated.

Also, he later writes, "Everything about the incident — from his immediate reaction and the in-game treatment by the medical staff to the prognosis and the delay in having surgery (to let swelling subside) – suggests a torn anterior cruciate ligament." (this I believe is correct) EXCEPT, in the very next paragraph, he writes "Sources said Chryst, a junior, will miss at least six months from the time of surgery, which would peg his return to late July or the first half of August, at the earliest." which, would be very optimistic for an ACL injury (7 - 9 months is more typical).  It's not inconceivable, but Adrian Peterson's return from an ACL injury suffered on December 24th 2011 by the first week of the NFL season (Sept. 9) was considered to be a quick outlier (though, being fair, Peterson suffered a torn ACL and MCL).

I am struggling to put all the info together, and to be honest, I am a bit surprised that Burns would leave, given that he is more than likely the only health experienced quarterback on the roster.  Obviously, I can think of reasons why he would not:

• Chryst's injury is not as bad as feared, and the six months is a fairly firm date (unlikely, since he hasn't had the surgery).
  
• A realistic assessment (either his own) or by the coaches has let it known that Costello is the likely starter in Sydney.  Maybe Costello has produced a Luck-like redshirt season,w here everyone expects he will be the next big thing at QB for Stanford, though I think if that were the case we would have all heard about it.
  
• Burns is down on the staff or Stanford, based on having lost the starting position, or because of his own assessment of his regression over the season (possible), or because of a conflict.
  
• Other reasons (wanting to be closer to home, for example)
  

Still, better writing by Wilner would have offered a little bit more information to inform the speculation.

If he is indeed grad transferring, best of luck to him.

BC

[winflop]

None of this struck me as surprising, but good to have confirmation.  Wouldn't surprise me if Chryst requests a medical redshirt for the whole season but we probably wouldn't see that request until fall camp.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/11/st...-transfer/

Let the Costello era begin!

[winflop]

None of this struck me as surprising, but good to have confirmation.  Wouldn't surprise me if Chryst requests a medical redshirt for the whole season but we probably wouldn't see that request until fall camp.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/11/st...-transfer/

Let the Costello era begin!

[Treebound]

Come on BC,
It's Wilner that we're talking about.  Unfortunately, he's all about click bait now and the journalism has gone out of the window.    I seldom read his column any more.  It's generally not worth the time. :P

[Treebound]

Come on BC,
It's Wilner that we're talking about.  Unfortunately, he's all about click bait now and the journalism has gone out of the window.    I seldom read his column any more.  It's generally not worth the time. :P

[BostonCard]

Of course we rail birds are like the dinosaur

Extinct since practices closed?

BC

[BostonCard]

Of course we rail birds are like the dinosaur

Extinct since practices closed?

BC

[DC 86]

Wouldn't surprise me if Chryst requests a medical redshirt for the whole season but we probably wouldn't see that request until fall camp.

NCAA athletes are on a five year clock that starts when they begin their college careers. A sixth year is only granted if an athlete misses two years due to injury or other factors outside of their control, i.e. if they are granted two medical redshirts during that five year window. Since Chryst already redshirted his freshman year for non-medical reasons he won't benefit from a medical redshirt next season. He eligibility expires after the 2018 season, regardless of whether he misses the 2017 season.

[DC 86]

Wouldn't surprise me if Chryst requests a medical redshirt for the whole season but we probably wouldn't see that request until fall camp.

NCAA athletes are on a five year clock that starts when they begin their college careers. A sixth year is only granted if an athlete misses two years due to injury or other factors outside of their control, i.e. if they are granted two medical redshirts during that five year window. Since Chryst already redshirted his freshman year for non-medical reasons he won't benefit from a medical redshirt next season. He eligibility expires after the 2018 season, regardless of whether he misses the 2017 season.

[thunder_chik]

It doesn't surprise me that Burns may be exploring his options, including a grad transfer.  Anu Solomon, the AZ QB, is transferring to Baylor for his final year of eligibility.  If Chryst isn't ready to play the 2017 season, and Costello doesn't appear ready or gets injured, we'll be in a tight spot.  Maybe we need to be exploring the possibility of a grad transfer QB... ;)

[thunder_chik]

It doesn't surprise me that Burns may be exploring his options, including a grad transfer.  Anu Solomon, the AZ QB, is transferring to Baylor for his final year of eligibility.  If Chryst isn't ready to play the 2017 season, and Costello doesn't appear ready or gets injured, we'll be in a tight spot.  Maybe we need to be exploring the possibility of a grad transfer QB... ;)

[BostonCard]

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

"Simplifying the playbook" would mean installing an offense that is dependent on the QB making a single key to determine the play (like a read option).  WE have some plays like that, but our offense is based on reading the entire defense.  The number of plays, while impressive, is really not as dramatic as it sounds, since we run the same play from multiple formations.

The complexity comes from reading the defense, recognizing the alignment and adjusting the call at the line of scrimmage to the play that gives us the best chance to succeed.  When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

But if you have an offense based on reading keys for an inexperienced QB, you can't just switch to a pro style offense the next year.

BC

[BostonCard]

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

"Simplifying the playbook" would mean installing an offense that is dependent on the QB making a single key to determine the play (like a read option).  WE have some plays like that, but our offense is based on reading the entire defense.  The number of plays, while impressive, is really not as dramatic as it sounds, since we run the same play from multiple formations.

The complexity comes from reading the defense, recognizing the alignment and adjusting the call at the line of scrimmage to the play that gives us the best chance to succeed.  When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

But if you have an offense based on reading keys for an inexperienced QB, you can't just switch to a pro style offense the next year.

BC